If a taxpayer receives a false tax invoice, whether to impose an additional tax on the failure to receive qualified evidence;

The penalty tax for failure to receive the regular disbursement shall be applied when the disbursement is not received even if the actual transaction exists, and it shall not be applied to the act of receiving the evidential document different from the fact.

Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act [Payable Tax]

1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff falling under the subsequent part of the order of revocation shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 82,203,730 against the Plaintiff on November 10, 2006 shall be revoked.

3. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

4. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be seven minutes, and the remaining costs shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the defendant, respectively.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The judgment of the court of first instance as referred to in Paragraph (2) and the defendant as to November 10, 2006 and each disposition of value-added tax of KRW 256,880,000 for the first term of 203 against the plaintiff on November 10, 2006 and value-added tax of KRW 228,869,350 for the second term of 20

1. A cited part;

This court's reasoning is as follows, except for addition and modification, and therefore it is identical to the entry of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is also accepted by Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

A. Once the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered, the court recognized “a processed tax invoice without real transactions,” and changed to “a tax invoice recognized as a different tax invoice.”

B. Change from the first instance court’s judgment to “the fact that the gold bullion exported by the Plaintiff had been cut off” to “the fact that the gold bullion exported by the Plaintiff was going through a heavy carbon company in the middle.”

다. 제1심 판결 제10면 10행의 "자료가 없는 점" 다음에 ", ㉳ 원고는 폭탄영업이 한참 성행할 당시인 2003. 1.경 설립되어 금지금 거래를 시작하였고 원고의 대표이사는 그 이전에 금지금 거래 경력이 전혀 없었던 점, ㉴ 이 사건 거래에 따른 대금 지급도 원고가 그 매입처라는 업체에 송금을 하면 도관업체, 폭탄업체를 경유하여 수입업체에 이르기까지 역방향으로 순차적으로 송금이 이루어지는 등 비정상적인 방법으로 행해진 점"을 추가.

(d) Change in the part of Section 2-d. (2) in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows:

(2) As to the imposition of corporate tax

In applying Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006; hereinafter “Corporate Tax Act”) on the ground that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice different from the fact, the Defendant imposes an additional tax to receive evidentiary documents.

However, in light of the principle of no taxation without law, or the requirements for tax exemption or tax exemption, and the interpretation of tax laws shall not be extensively interpreted or analogically interpreted without any justifiable reason, barring any special circumstance. Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act provides that where an entrepreneur is provided with goods or services and fails to receive evidential documents as provided in any of subparagraphs of Article 116(2) of the Corporate Tax Act, an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount may be collected in addition to the amount equivalent to the amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount may be collected in a case where the entrepreneur receives evidentiary documents different from the actual amount (in a case where a corporation supplies goods or services, it is more clear from the case where each subparagraph of Article 76(9) of the Corporate Tax Act, which provides for additional tax in relation to the issuance or submission of an invoice

The purpose of Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act is to enhance transparency in the expenditure content of a corporation and induce a counterpart business operator to cultivate the tax base, and thus, it is difficult to achieve such legislative purpose merely by imposing a duty of faithful reporting on a business operator subject to the training of tax base. Thus, in light of the fact that a corporation being supplied with goods or services receives regular expenditure documents and imposes a sanction to impose additional payment in an amount equivalent to a certain percentage of the amount not received for the breach of such duty (see Constitutional Court Order 2004Hun-Ga7, Nov. 24, 2005; Decision 2006Hun-Ba88, May 31, 2007). The penalty tax under the above provision shall apply to cases where it is not received evidentiary documents despite the actual transaction, and it is not applicable to the receipt of false evidentiary documents, such as this case (see Supreme Court Decision 208Du4589, May 29, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2008Du5786, Jun. 27, 2008).

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax is dismissed as it is without merit, and the part of the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax is accepted as reasonable. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, it is accepted in part of the plaintiff's appeal and accepted the claim for revocation of the disposition imposing value-added tax, and it is dismissed as it is without merit.

[Seoul Administrative Court 2007Guhap31676, 2008)]

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant's imposition of value-added tax on November 10, 2006 to the plaintiff 256,880,000 won for the first term of 203 and the second term of 228,869,350 won for the second term of 2003 and the imposition of corporate tax amount of KRW 82,203,730 for the business year of 203 shall be revoked.

1. Details of the imposition;

A. On January 3, 2003, the Plaintiff is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling precious metals, export and import business, etc. with the head office ○○○○○ Building ○○○○○○○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○.

B. On March 18, 2003, when filing the first tax return for the year 2003, the Plaintiff received 50 g 69,350,000 won from ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”). On April 16, 2003, 50 g 626,650,00 won from ○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○”). On May 19, 2003, the Plaintiff received 50 g 60 g 20 g 50 g 60 g 200 g 20 g 5 20 g 3 20 g 5 g 200 g 3 20 g 4 203 20 g 203 (hereinafter referred to as “3 40 g 20 g 5 g 200 g 204”).

D. The defendant recognized the tax invoice of this case on November 10, 2006 as the tax invoice for processing without real transaction according to the notification of the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office, and corrected and notified the plaintiff the value-added tax amount of KRW 228,869,350 for the first term portion of 2003, and the second term portion of 2003, which was 228,869,350 for the second term portion of 203, and imposed corporate tax amount of KRW 82,203,730 for the business year of 203, by applying the penalty tax not received (hereinafter referred to as "the disposition of each case"). The plaintiff was dissatisfied with the disposition of this case and filed a request with the National Tax Tribunal on February 13, 2007. The National Tax Tribunal dismissed the disposition of this case on May 23, 2007.

[Justifiable Grounds] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-4, Gap evidence 14-1-3, Gap evidence 26-1-26, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) Violation of value-added tax part

“The Plaintiff actually purchased gold bullion from the transaction partner of this case and paid the price in full. The tax invoice of this case is a normal transaction. The Plaintiff confirmed whether it is a normal business entity by visiting the transaction partner of this case before the transaction partner of this case and then purchased gold bullion from the transaction partner of this case and offered it to ○○○○ (○○○○ (H.K.) located in Hong Kong through ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “○○○○”). It does not constitute a public contest with the transaction partner, tax-free supplier, supplier, or ○○ commercial company, etc. to unlawfully receive value-added tax. In other words, the Plaintiff did not intend to jointly evade taxes with the gold bullion company, and did not know the other company’s act. Accordingly, the Defendant’s imposition of value-added tax of this case on the premise that the tax invoice of this case was false tax invoice or that the Plaintiff knew or could have known it was unlawful.”

As seen earlier, the instant transaction constitutes a normal transaction, and thus, the Defendant’s imposition of corporate tax of this case, imposing additional tax on the premise that the instant tax invoice is a false tax invoice, is also unlawful.

(3) Violation of double tax investigation

The instant disposition is unlawful in violation of Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, since it was conducted as a result of a duplicate tax investigation on the same item of tax during

(b) Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached Table related statutes.

(c) Fact of recognition;

(1) A general form of an irregular transaction for the purpose of evading taxes during the period of gold bullion.

"(A) In appearance, gold bullion is distributed through the phase of ? Foreign Enterprise ? importer ? ? Second (Omission) ? so-called so-called Cubic Enterprise ? (hereinafter referred to as a "cubic Enterprise") ? The transaction price is paid in sequence from the exporter to the importer ? However, among the above distributors, it is limited to the price of gold bullion to be issued by a specific person or a specific enterprise, and there are many cases in which gold bullion is not actually traded or transported." (B) If the gold bullion is distributed at the pre-sale stage in the pre-sale stage in excess of the zero-rate rate, it is not possible to collect the value-added tax from the country by withdrawing the import price in cash within the short period, and then it is not possible to receive the remaining amount of value-added tax from the previous manufacturer in excess of the amount of value-added tax after deducting the amount of value-added tax from the domestic sales price of the gold bullion in the pre-sale stage in which the sales price is distributed separately from the previous manufacturer.

(C) In order to maximize profits, a gas supply business shall distribute the maximum quantity of gold bullion in a short term. ① In order to prevent disputes between participating enterprises that may arise therefrom and accidents such as loss of prices, most of the same former owners (referred to those who prepare for the import settlement of gold bullion first from the outside of the gas supply network; c) shall operate both the exporter and the importer at the same time, ② shall place the former owner to directly trade with the gas supply company. ② The former owner shall determine the volume of the transaction, unit price, and margin of the transaction at each stage, ③ the former owner shall have determined the volume, unit price, and quantity of the transaction at each stage of the transaction, ④ the series of transactions from the importer to the exporter is made at a very short time, and ⑤ the actual transaction of gold bullion immediately is transported to the exporter (limited to the formal transport for the normal transaction even if the transportation is made at each stage of the transaction).

(2) The records of the plaintiff representative director

Park○, the representative director of the Plaintiff, worked for the city-related service chain, ○○○, etc., and did not have any indication on gold bullion transactions. Park○, without resignation from the Plaintiff’s representative director, worked for the company from July 2005 to ○○○.

(3) Type, etc. of the instant transaction

(A) The details of transactions from six transactions to the export of the instant transaction are as follows.

Hong Kong

Imported Enterprise

Raban Enterprise

Exporter

Hong Kong

○ ○ Commercial

○ ○

(m)○○ commercial

(m)○○

(m)○○

(m)○○

○ ○

○○ Commercial

588,670, 660 won

593,080,00 won

594,146,400 won

596,123,960 won

612,480,00 won

613,653,480 won

616,00,00 won

58,112,937 won

Tax Exemption

Tax Exemption

Tax Exemption

Taxation (sales value: 56,800,000 + Value-added tax: 55,680,000 KRW 46,000

Taxation (Sales Price: 57,866,800 + Additional Value Tax: 55,786,680 won)

Taxation (Sales value: 560,000,000 + Value-added tax: 56,000,000 won

zero Rate

Value-Added Tax Payment

0 won

106,680 won (5,786,680 won-5,680,000)

213,320 won (56,00,000-5,786,680 won)

Value-Added Tax Refund

56,000,000 won

Loss of the National Treasury

5,680,000 won (56,00,000 won-106,680 won-213,320) corresponds to the delinquent amount of ○○○○○, a company with a breadth.

"(B) Other wide-scale coal companies. One transaction was involved by ○○○, ○○, ○○, 4, and 5 each in ○○○, 2, and 3 transactions. The transaction structure is as follows, and all of the transactions are similar to the six transactions."

Stage 8

○○○○ ○○ Trading ○○○○ Trading ○○ Trading ○○○ Trading ○○ Trading ○○○○p ? Plaintiff ?○○○○ Company

2 Transactions

14 Stage

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○ ○○ Trade ○○ ○○ trade ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ?○○○○ ? ○○.com ○○○○ ?○○○ ? Plaintiff ?○○○.

3 Transactions

Stage 8

○○○○○○○○○○○○ ?○○ Trading ○○○○ ○○○○○○ ?○○○ ? Plaintiff ○○○○

4 Transactions

Stage 9

○○○○○ Trading ○○○○○○ ○○○○ ○○○○ ○○○○ ○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company

5 Transactions

Stage 9

○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company

(C) The date of import and export of the instant transaction and the export price and the domestic market price are as follows.

No.

Date of Import

Date of Export

Export Price ($/g)

Domestic Price ($/g)

1 Transactions

Mar. 18, 2003

Mar. 19, 2003

10.83

11.59

2 Transactions

April 16, 2003

April 17, 2003

10.37

11.11

3 Transactions

May 19, 2003

May 20, 2003

11.50.

12.18

4 Transactions

August 11, 2003

August 12, 2003

11.44

12.27

5 Transactions

August 25, 2003

August 26, 2003

11.62

12.30

6 Transactions

203.9.22

o October 10, 2003

12.05

12.60

(D) Even if the Plaintiff is an exporter, the Plaintiff did not receive a certificate of subdivision for the refund of customs duties or refund customs duties for the export of the gold bullion of this case.

(4) Inspection of the representative director of the plaintiff

At the time of the investigation on August 2003, ○○ made a statement to the effect that “The export price was determined by ○○○○○, a domestic Effort, and exported at that price if sent by facsimile.”

(5) Reduction of trade volume after implementation of the tax payment security system (Article 106-3(11) of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act);

"(A) As the tax security system was implemented on April 1, 2005, the above bomb business became practically impossible (if there is suspicion of an irregular transaction, the gold bullion seller would provide security for payment of value-added tax on sales) and thereafter the trade volume of gold bullion in Korea has been reduced rapidly." (B) On April 1, 2005, the trade volume of gold bullion before and after the enforcement of the tax security system is as follows.

Classification

203. 203

204.

205.

206.

Export volume (metric tons)

165

233

19

45

Import volume (metric tons)

238

268

56

10

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 26, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 7, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 8-1 through 3, Eul evidence 9-1 through 13, Eul evidence 14-2, Eul evidence 15-1 through 4, Eul evidence 16, Eul evidence 17-1 through 22, the purport of whole pleadings and arguments

D. Determination

(1) On the imposition of value-added tax

"(A) The burden of proving that the tax invoice of this case constitutes a "tax invoice different from the fact", and ① that the tax invoice is false is, in principle, to the defendant who is the tax authority, the defendant must bear the burden of proving that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction. In a case where the defendant proves that the tax invoice is not false and that it is not accompanied by the real transaction, the defendant should bear the burden of proving that the tax invoice is not accompanied by the real transaction. In a case where the defendant proves that the tax invoice is reasonably acceptable, the plaintiff who is the taxpayer claiming that the tax invoice is not false and that the plaintiff who is the taxpayer disputing the illegality of the defendant disposition is in a position to make it easy to present relevant evidence and materials (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Nu492, Dec. 13, 1983; 2004Du14168, Jun. 10, 2005).

In addition, in Articles 6 (1), 7 (1) and 16 (1) of the Value-Added Tax Act, a tax invoice shall be delivered to an entrepreneur who supplies or receives goods or services, such as a person who delivers or provides services due to a contractual cause, etc., and a person liable to pay value-added tax shall be deemed a person who actually provides goods or services to an entrepreneur who is not a supplier or a person who establishes a nominal legal relationship with an entrepreneur who actually supplies or receives services (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 2003; 2002Do4520, Jan. 10, 200). Other tax invoices of the actual supplier and the supplier under the tax invoice shall not be deducted or refunded, unless there are special circumstances that the person who received the goods or services was unaware of the nominal name, and that there was no negligence on the part of the supplier in knowing the above nominal name (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Du27727, Jun. 28, 2002).

"㉮ 이 사건 거래에 있어 수입업체로부터 수입한 금지금을 다시 동일한 업체에 수출한 점, ㉯ 금지금의 시세를 고려하면 이 사건 거래처나 원고가 이 사건 금지금을 국내에 유통시킬 경우 더 많은 이익을 취할 수 있었음에도 이 사건 거래가 이루어졌던 점, ㉰ 원고는 수출업체이면서도 이 사건 거래에 있어 수출에 관하여 관세환급을 위한 분할증명서를 양·수도하거나 관세환급신청을 하지 않았던 점, ㉱ 금지금 등의 수출입에 있어서 8~14개 단계의 거래가 대부분 하루 정도의 아주 짧은 기간 내에 모두 이루어진 점, ㉲ 금지금의 수출시 가격이 수입시 가격보다 더 낮아 전체적으로 손해를 보면서 수출을 하고 있는 거래구조하에서 비정상적인 수출이 계속적으로 이루어지고 있었던 점, ㉳ 2005.4. 1. 납세 담보제도 시행 이후 금지금의 수출입 무역량이 급격하게 감소하였고, 원고 또한 납세 담보제도 시행 이후 담보를 제공하고 수출을 하였다고 볼 아무런 자료가 없는 점 등의 사정을 종합하여 고려하면, 이 사건 거래는 전체적으로 매출처로부터 받은 대금을 그 매입처에 송금하여 전달하고 세금계산서를 수수한 다음 이러한 개입의 대가로 장차 포탈할 부가가치세액의 일정 부분을 매출가액과 매입가액의 차액이라는 형태로 취득하는 이른바폭탄영업'의 일부분이었던 것으로 보이고, 원고가 금지금에 대한 매매계약을 체결하고 대금을 지급하여 왔다고 하더라고,폭탄영업'을 실제거래로 위장하기 위한 명목일 뿐인 것으로 봄이 상당하다.",즉, 이 사건에 있어서 제반정황을 토대로 하여 보면 이 사건 세금계산서가 사실과 다르게 기재된 것으로 볼 수 있는 합리적인 정황이 있는 반면, 갑 8호증의 1 내지 17, 갑 9호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 10호증의 1 내지 15, 갑11호증의 1 내지 12, 갑 12호증의 1 내지 9, 갑 13호증의 1 내지 8, 갑 18호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 19 내지 25호증, 갑 27호증의 1 내지 6, 갑 28호증의 1 내지 4의 각 기재, 증인 진○○의 밀부 증언만으로는 위 인정을 뒤집기에 부족하다.

(B) The substance of transaction

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant tax invoice is a tax invoice that conforms to the facts, since it was exported each time with goods transport certificates, export declaration certificates, transportation securities, etc. and exported normally.

However, the above transaction method is a structure that can only be seen as a loss on the premise of the payment of a reasonable tax amount from the beginning. Ultimately, the transaction collection from the transaction partner is intended while the tax authorities are responsible for the transaction, and the amount equivalent to the value-added tax that is exempted from the payment by the report of business closure was the only source of profit and the motive of the transaction, which can be presented in the transaction, and in reality, it does not mean that the reduction of tax revenue or the national treasury loss is incurred. Thus, even if the tax amount was normally determined by issuing a tax invoice according to the transaction and submitting the tax base and tax return for a transaction for the purpose of refund of value-added tax, if the tax invoice was issued and received by the transaction for the purpose of refund of value-added tax and the value-added tax was received by the transaction for the purpose of refund of the

(C) Whether the plaintiff acted in good faith

In addition, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that he did not know and did not know about the transaction prior to the instant transaction. However, in light of the aforementioned factual relations and circumstances, the Plaintiff’s existence, such as the Plaintiff, who ultimately exports gold bullion in order to complete tort by deceiving the national treasury in a way that the parties to the transaction did not pay the value-added tax by abusing the zero-rate tax system and the refund system of value-added tax related to the export and import of gold bullion, is essential, and when the Plaintiff forward the export price to ○○○○, a transfer agent of ○○ commercial, in the Republic of Korea without negotiation with the transaction partner, without considering the fact that it was exported at the price when the Plaintiff sent the export price to ○○○○○ commercial, the export price to ○○○○ commercial, the export price was determined by facsimile, the Plaintiff appears to have been engaged in the export-related

(D) Sub-determination

Therefore, the instant tax invoice is prepared without actual transaction or prepared differently from the actual transaction, and it constitutes a false tax invoice. Even if the Plaintiff had knowledge of the fact that the instant tax invoice constitutes a false tax invoice, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to know, considering the aforementioned various circumstances. Ultimately, the Defendant’s imposition disposition of value-added tax on the premise of the instant tax invoice is lawful, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(2) As to the imposition of corporate tax

Under the tax law, in order to facilitate the exercise of the right to impose taxes and the realization of a tax claim, where a taxpayer violates various obligations, such as a return and tax payment, as prescribed by the individual tax law without justifiable grounds, the taxpayer’s intention or negligence is not considered as administrative sanctions. On the other hand, such sanctions cannot be imposed in cases where there is a justifiable reason that it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to be unaware of his/her obligations, or where it is unreasonable for the taxpayer to expect the fulfillment of his/her obligations, etc., and additional taxes under the Corporate Tax Act are imposed on a certain matter in order to ensure the propriety of taxation under the law, and are imposed on him/her in order to secure the proper performance of such obligations (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 85Nu229, Feb. 24, 1987; 85Nu227, Jan. 27, 2005; 2032, Feb. 13, 2005).

According to the above facts, the tax invoice of this case is false and false, and thus, the plaintiff neglected the duty to receive a legitimate tax invoice according to the transaction. On the other hand, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is no justifiable reason to believe that there is no negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

Therefore, the disposition of imposition of the corporate tax in this case, which was imposed as a sanction against the Plaintiff’s neglect of duty, is legitimate (in light of the purpose of collecting the additional tax and the purport of collecting the additional tax, it is reasonable to interpret Article 76(5) of the Corporate Tax Act as including not only the case where the goods or services are supplied but also the case where the tax invoice is received differently from the fact and does not receive the corresponding tax invoice, and also the case where the tax invoice corresponding to the legitimate transaction is not received). The Plaintiff’

(3) Whether it is an illegal duplicate investigation

According to Article 81-4 (2) of the Framework Act on National Taxes and Article 63-2 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, a re-investigation may be conducted even in the same taxable period of the same item, such as cases where a full investigation is conducted on a person suspected of tax evasion through an act disturbing the economic order such as speculative investment in real estate, wholesale, and trading without authentic documentation. Thus, a tax investigation conducted on the plaintiff by the director of the Seoul Regional Tax Office in the course of conducting a full investigation on the suspicion of tax evasion in the transaction of gold bullion, and there is clear evidence to prove the suspicion of tax evasion. Thus, since there is a temporary investigation on the person suspected of tax evasion through an act disturbing the economic order such as transaction without authentic documentation, etc., even if there is a local investigation on the refund of value-added tax against the plaintiff before it, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a double investigation prohibited."

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is groundless, and it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Related Acts and subordinate statutes

Article 14 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(2) The provisions pertaining to the calculation of tax base in tax-related Acts shall apply according to the substance, notwithstanding the name or form of the income, profit, property, act or transaction.

Article 81-4 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

(1) Any tax official shall conduct tax investigation within the minimum limit necessary for proper and fair taxation and shall not abuse the right of tax investigation for any other purpose.

(2) Tax officials may not conduct reinvestigation for the same items of taxation and for the same taxable period, except in any of the following cases:

1. Where obvious evidence exists that prove a suspicion of tax evasion;

2. Where it is necessary to investigate a trading partner;

3. Where mistakes relating to two or more business years exist;

4. Where an investigation is conducted following the decision on necessary disposition pursuant to Article 65 (1) 3 (including cases applied mutatis mutandis in Articles 66 (6) and 81);

5. Other cases similar to subparagraphs 1 through 4, which are prescribed by Presidential Decree.

Article 63-2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Framework Act on National Taxes

The term "other cases similar thereto, which are prescribed by the Presidential Decree" in Article 81-4 (2) of the Act means the cases falling under any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a general investigation is undertaken against a person suspected of disturbing the economic order through speculative investment in real estate, intermediary and hoarding, undertaking transactions without authentic documentation, etc., leading to evasion of taxes;

2. Either a reinvestigation for the handling of all kinds of assessment data, or a confirmation investigation for determination of the national tax refund and re-revision without recourse to field investigation for taxation disposition pursuant to the provisions of Articles 81-5 and 81-9 of the Act.

○ Supply of goods Article 6 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The supply of goods shall be a delivery or transfer of goods pursuant to all contractual and legal grounds.

○ Supply of Article 7 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The public funds for services shall be either provided for services or made to use goods, facilities or rights, pursuant to all contractual or legal grounds of social recognition.

○ Tax Invoice Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) Where an entrepreneur registered as a taxpayer supplies goods or services, he/she shall deliver an invoice stating the following matters (hereinafter referred to as "tax invoice") to the person who receives the supply, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, at the time provided for in Article 9 (where Presidential Decree prescribes otherwise, the time otherwise, such time as prescribed by Presidential Decree). In such cases, a tax invoice may be modified, as prescribed by Presidential Decree, if any ground prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as error or correction, arises

1. Registration number, name or denomination of the businessman who provides;

2. Registration number of the person who receives;

3. Supply value and value-added tax;

4. Date of preparation.

5. Matters prescribed by Presidential Decree other than those under subparagraphs 1 through 4.

○ Tax amount paid under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The amount of value-added taxes payable by an entrepreneur (hereinafter referred to as the “paid tax amount”) shall be the amount computed by deducting the tax amount under the following subparagraphs (hereinafter referred to as the “purchase tax amount”) from the tax amount on the goods and services supplied by him (hereinafter referred to as the “sales tax amount”): Provided, That where an input tax amount exceeds the output tax amount, it shall be a refundable tax amount (hereinafter

1. The tax amount for the supply of goods or services used or to be used for his own business;

2. The tax amount for the import of goods used or to be used for his own business; and

(2) The following input taxes shall not be deducted from the output tax amount:

1-2. An input tax amount, in case where the tax invoice as provided in Article 16 (1) and (3) is not delivered, or the whole or part of the matters to be entered under Article 16 (1) 1 through 4 (hereinafter referred to as a "necessary entry item") is not entered or entered differently from the fact on the delivered tax invoice: Provided, That the input tax amount in such case as prescribed by the Presidential Decree shall

○ Decision and Correction Article 21 of the Value-Added Tax Act

(1) The head of a district tax office having jurisdiction over a place of business, the Commissioner of the competent Regional Tax Office or the Commissioner of the National Tax Service shall determine or correct the tax base of value-added tax or tax amount

2. Where there are any mistakes or omissions in details of the final tax return;

3. Where the list of the total tax invoice by buyer or the total tax invoice by buyer is not submitted in the final tax return, or all or part of the submitted list of the total tax invoice by buyer is not entered or

○ Additional Tax under Article 76 of the Corporate Tax Act (amended by Act No. 8141 of Dec. 30, 2006)

(5) In case where a corporation (excluding such corporation as prescribed by the Presidential Decree) is supplied goods or services with an entrepreneur as prescribed by the Presidential Decree in connection with its business and fails to receive the evidential documents falling under any of subparagraphs of Article 116 (2), the chief of the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment shall collect as corporate tax the amount calculated by adding an amount equivalent to 2/100 of the unpaid amount, except for the case where the provisions of

○ Receipt and safekeeping of documentary evidence of expenditure Article 116 of the Corporate Tax Act

(1) A corporation shall prepare or receive documentary evidence for all business-related transactions in each business year and keep them for 5 years from the date on which the time limit for report under the provisions of Article 60 expires.

(2) In cases falling under paragraph (1), where any corporation receives goods or services from a business operator prescribed by Presidential Decree and pays the price therefor, it shall receive evidential documents falling under any one of the following subparagraphs and keep them: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases prescribed

2. Tax invoice under Article 16 of the Value-Added Tax Act;

○ Special taxation of value-added tax on gold prohibited under Article 106-3 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act

(1) The articles of incorporation (amended by Act No. 7577 of July 13, 2005)

(1) The value-added tax shall be exempted until June 30, 2005 pursuant to the classification under paragraph (3) for the supply of gold bullion falling under any of the following subparagraphs (hereafter referred to as "tax-free gold bullion" in this Article), which is bullion equipped with the form, net altitude, etc. prescribed by Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "gold bullion" in this

1. Gold bullion supplied by the wholesalers and refiners of gold bullion prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "gold bullion wholesalers, etc.") to the gold craftsmen, etc. prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to as the "gold craftsmen, etc.") after receiving tax-free recommendation from a person prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter in this Article, referred to

(2) The value-added tax shall be exempted until June 30, 2005 on the gold bullion imported by the gold craftsmen, etc. and financial institutions after receiving a tax-free import recommendation from the persons prescribed by the Presidential Decree (hereafter referred to as "the head of the tax

(3) Special cases under the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply to the tax-free gold metals under paragraph (1) pursuant to any of the following subparagraphs:

1. Where a financial institution supplies tax-free gold metals, Article 12 of the Value-Added Tax Act shall apply;

2. Where any entrepreneur other than financial institutions supplies the tax-free gold bullion, the relevant entrepreneur shall be deemed the value-added tax taxable entrepreneur and subject to the application of the Value-Added Tax Act. In this case, the value-added tax amount borne at the time of purchasing the relevant gold bullion in connection with the supply of the tax-free gold bullion shall not be deemed the input tax amount eligible for the deduction under Article 17 of the Value-Added Tax Act, and the tax-free gold bullion gold metals manufactured and supplied by the gold bullion refiner and the value-added tax amount borne by the relevant entrepreneur in connection with the purchase

(11) The head of the competent tax office may, if deemed necessary for preserving the value-added tax, request the wholesalers, etc. and gold craftsmen, etc. to provide security.